Leisure Clothing director received two salaries and €30,000 bonus, court hears

Magistrate gives the parties until the 10 February to privately submit a note of their observations regarding whether the prosecution had proven a prima facie case for the accusations relating to human trafficking and misappropriation

A court has been told how while Leisure Clothing employees were paid a meagre €140 cash-in-hand every two months, the company director Han Bin received two salaries and a very generous performance bonus.

Inspector Joseph Busuttil told the court that Han Bin was entitled to “around €30,000” as an annual performance bonus in addition to his basic salary and an additional salary from the factory’s parent company, China Chongqing International Corporation for Economic and Technical Cooperation.

Busuttil exhibited a videotaped interview of the interrogation, in which he said Han had told him that the workers were made to work 60 hours a week, were entitled to time off in lieu but not to overtime, with three breaks per day – totalling one hour and 45 minutes - and that the workers’ passports were kept by management “until the management were convinced that their intentions were good.”

“As there were insufficient funds in the company account, he was asked what would happen were all the workers to ask for their pay at once, he said it would either be pumped in from abroad or a larger overdraft would be negotiated with the bank”.

The inspector added that Han had admitted to police that the employees had not been informed that the company was effectively investing part of their wages in itself “to avoid worrying them, should the company’s performance decline”.

Han is reported to have told the police that he was aware that the contract was not in conformity with Maltese law but it “ensured that everyone kept their job.”

“Leisure Clothing has never had any direct contact with Vietnam,” he said, but worked through a middleman. The Vietnamese employees had been engaged as they were cheaper than their Chinese colleagues, but they were subsequently found to be less industrious.

Sergeant Bernardette Valletta from the police Vice Squad exhibited several documents in Chinese, which had been recovered from Han's house.

They included an inland revenue capital duty receipt for €21,000, as well as a promise of sale, site plan and contracts between a certain Marlene Farrugia and Han Bin regarding a property in St. Ursula Street in Valletta.

Amounts of Yuan in cash and credit cards were also recovered from various rooms in the house.

At one point during his interrogation, Inspector Sylvana Briffa left the room and Valletta asked Han, “how come you had a signed contract saying you would pay them €600 but were paying €185 every six months?” to which he answered, “that is in case the ETC ask us for it”.

Defence lawyer Edward Gatt asked how none of this was recorded on any statement by the accused, which he had made to two separate police officers. “This wouldn’t even happen in a Benny Hill film,” remarked the lawyer angrily. The inspector replied that the accused did not want to say this “on the record”.

Inspector Busuttil told the court that those workers who had insisted on reading the second contract were informed that it was “for tax purposes as the company was not declaring all its tax.”

Asked by lawyer Pio Valletta to describe the differences between the two contracts, he said the differences were in the pay and hours. “The second contract had “ground wage” of €140 every two months and a bonus system tied to performance, courses, examinations and so on”.

“If you see the payslips, the ground wage plus bonuses, plus the money kept for the workers by the company it all adds up to around half of the minimum wage” said Busuttil.

Magistrate Carol Peralta noted that the charges are very serious that he was being very cautious in issuing the decree of prima facie that would allow Han to be indicted. He gave the parties up till 10 February to privately submit a note of observations on whether the prosecution had managed to prove a prima facie case for the two accusations against the accused.

The note is also to include an opinion on whether the court can declare a prima facie case on selected accusations and not all the accusations.

The case will continue on 9 February.